World’s biggest geoengineering experiment ‘violates’ UN rules

October 17, 2012

Yellow and brown colors show relatively high concentrations of chlorophyll in August 2012, after iron sulphate was dumped into the Pacific Ocean as part of a controversial geoengineering scheme (credit: Giovanni/Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center/NASA)

Controversial U.S. businessman’s iron fertilization off west coast of Canada contravenes two UN conventions.

Russ George, a controversial California businessman, dumped about 100 tons of iron sulphate into the Pacific Ocean as part of a geoengineering scheme off the west coast of Canada in July, a Guardian investigation reveals.

Lawyers, environmentalists and civil society groups are calling it a “blatant violation” of two international moratoria and the news is likely to spark outrage at a United Nations environmental summit taking place in India this week, says The Guardian.

Satellite images appear to confirm the claim by Californian that the iron has spawned an artificial plankton bloom as large as 10,000 square kilometers. The intention is for the plankton to absorb carbon dioxide and then sink to the ocean bed — a geoengineering technique known as ocean fertilization that he hopes will net lucrative carbon credits.

Scientists are debating whether iron fertilization can lock carbon into the deep ocean over the long term, and have raised concerns that it can irreparably harm ocean ecosystems, produce toxic tides and lifeless waters, and worsen ocean acidification and global warming.

International legal experts say George’s project has contravened the UN’s convention on biological diversity (CBD) and London convention on the dumping of wastes at sea, which both prohibit for-profit ocean fertilization activities.

Comments (23)

On one hand, some say that the everyday activities of seven billion people couldn’t be causing global warming. On the other, a small group doing small experiments is “geoengineering” and a danger to the planet, or maybe just to some short-sighted corporations. How can we have advances if we don’t allow experiments? Yes, a lot of the plankton are eaten by animal life, which produces more CO2. But doesn’t more ocean life in general mean more waste and corpses falling to the bottom of the ocean? Economic systems, civilization, humanity and maybe all life on earth are dependent on finding a way to avoid severe global heating. Sometimes, someone has to take risks.

Give me a break. We’re dumping millions of tons of chemicals and plastics into the ocean all the time, and no one is making as big a fuss. This is a tempest in a teapot. Good fodder for the scaremongering news.

The UN is not a force in itself, but a democratic representation of the countries of the world. America, as the most powerful nation, can (and often does) choose to ignore the UN, but then America is essentially acting as a dictator to the rest of us.

In the next few decades, when the size of China propels them to the top, the US may change it’s opinion of the UN.

Secondly, how can it be a good thing if 1 guy unilaterally decides to conduct an experiment that could cause tremendous damage and destruction to millions of sea creatures?
Doesn’t democracy, as trumpeted in the US, means taking the opinion of others into account? Do unto others as you would them do unto you…

How typically, arrogantly American. Since they drenched half of Asia with Agent Orange during the Vietnam war, they do have a track record for careless pollution for their own ends. The oceans absorb carbon anyway, and are becoming more acidic as a result, and harming the ecosystem, this appears to be a method of ensuring the oceans are reduced to acidified lifelessness. Perhaps he doesn’t like fish.

@G Russell – cool idea. Scientists can approach me to do illegal experiments. I run the risk and they get to do the research they want.

@anyone – given that our planet continues to surprise us the more we study it, isn’t it a bit pretentious for us to think that, not only are we the cause of the problem, but we can fix it? I believe neither.

I would argue that there’s nothing pretentious about an animal living in accordance with its nature. Our nature is to attempt to control our environment with technology to ensure our survival. I would argue that, yes, we will solve our problems (whether we caused them or not) because that’s our curious, inquisitive, ambitious, adventurous minds do.

In other words Logic, it’s our nature to master, well, nature :p…We are the only species capable of wanting to question “why”…why we think the way we do, and what is our nature and why…other creatures simply aren’t capable of this self-reflection.

Ah, one of those who conveniently denies we did it. Bit like a three year olds with chocolate round their mouth denying they ate the cookies. I think you’ll find if you study it a bit more that we are responsible however inconvenient that is.

It’s illegal, according to the UN, for an individual to do this, yet the UN says nothing about governments performing experiments on the populations of the areas they control. Nice to see the UN is morally bankrupt as ever.

If it really removes CO2 from the atmosphere, it is about the most stupid thing to do. We should all be happy about global warming. Finally the biosphere is recovering from the ecological disaster of the ice ages. Why the hell would anybody want the planet to become cooler? Why should we want another ice age? It’s insane!

Oh dear. You really haven’t been paying attention to science as opposed to the deranged denialist websites that make it up as they go along. Actually, it’s a long time since the last ice age, and you may have missed the fact that the ice caps are melting, and at an accelerating rate. You don’t know much about ecology do you? http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php will answer all your questions about climate change. Cooler doesn’t mean ‘another ice age’ and warmer doesn’t mean good good good. Try to think outside your little box.

No. The oceans are already turning acidic as a result of absorbing carbon as this shows http://www.livescience.com/18786-ocean-acidification-extinction.html so increasing this would seem to be not a good idea as it’s making it more and more difficult for marine species to adapt.
Not that this person cares about anything but making a profit. An American doing it off the West coast of Canada though?

Honestly, I agree with Bri on this one. It surely is not responsible for anyone to be doing “geo-engineering ” experiments lone-wolf. Society simply can’t tolerate that anymore. The same experiment, if done with thorough vetting, publicity, and various permissions and oversight by appropriate government agencies, might be quite acceptable.